Kim Young-young

Head of the Clean Correctional Institution;

March 7, 1986

The plaintiff's main claim and ancillary claim are all dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

State Claim: The revocation of the appointment of a public official on August 1, 1983 made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 10, 1985 shall be revoked.

Preliminary Claim: The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 5,354,978 won and 25 percent per annum from the day following the service of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff passed the examination for open recruitment of public officials on August 17, 1972 of the same year, and registered as candidates for appointment of public officials on August 17, 1973. The defendant appointed the plaintiff to the Jeonnam prison on August 16, 1973 and assigned the plaintiff to the Department of Cheongsong prison security by promoting the plaintiff to teachers on August 16, 1984. The defendant found on July 15, 1985 that the plaintiff was not subject to the disposition of suspension of qualification for the plaintiff on August 27, 1969 on the ground that the defendant did not notify the result of the personal review of the Director General of the Police Bureau of the Sejongbuk-do on July 15, 1985 and did not constitute a dispute over the plaintiff's appointment of the defendant on March 13, 1970 after being sentenced to suspension of qualification for a short term of eight months and suspension of qualification for one year on March 5, 1970.

The plaintiff's previous conviction is not a ground for disqualification of public official, but a public official who was appointed as above at the time of August 17, 1972 as well as the State Public Officials Act enforced on August 1, 1973. Thus, the plaintiff's above previous conviction is not a ground for disqualification of public official, and even if the plaintiff's previous conviction becomes a ground for disqualification of public official under the State Public Officials Act at the time of August 1, 1973, it is not a ground for disqualification of public official. And even if the plaintiff's above previous conviction becomes a ground for disqualification of public official under the State Public Officials Act at the time of registration of appointment of public official, it is not a ground for disqualification of public official, and it is not a ground for disqualification of public official after 12 years have passed since the above appointment of the plaintiff as public official by negligence. Thus, the defendant's above disqualification of public official after 19 years have passed since it violated the principle of trust. Thus, the above disqualification of public official after 3 years have become a public official.

The plaintiff also claims that the defendant's above right to revoke the above appointment has expired as of August 1, 1982 after the lapse of 10 years from August 1, 1972 where the appointment was made, and as of August 1, 1982 where ten years have passed since the appointment was made. As seen above, the defendant's above disposition to revoke appointment is merely a confirmation of an administrative act that is null and void, and therefore, the above assertion based on the premise that the plaintiff's above disposition to revoke the above appointment is just an administrative act that is in its original meaning.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

Even if the cancellation of the above appointment disposition by the defendant for domestic affairs is lawful, since the plaintiff has served as a public official from August 1, 1972 to August 10, 1983, the plaintiff argued that the payment of the retirement allowance of 5,354,978 won corresponding to the above period should be made as prescribed by the Public Officials Pension Act, and the retirement allowance system under the Public Officials Pension Act applies to a case where a public official retires after being duly appointed. As seen earlier, since the above appointment disposition by the defendant against the plaintiff is void as a matter of course, the plaintiff did not obtain the status as a legitimate public official from the beginning, and thus the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's main claim and conjunctive claim are all dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

April 4, 1986

Judges Lee Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)